On Wednesday, Valve teased Steam Boxes and announced a beta testing program, which will give away 300 free consoles to testers who complete a basic set of requirements involving the Steam game distribution network and assorted paperwork:

Notably Valve did not show off any actual hardware on Wednesday, despite being rumored to be working with 15 to 20 top PC makers on Steam Boxes. This is not entirely surprising, given that Valve's intention for some time now has been to ship the Steam Boxes sometime in 2014. Valve writes:

Entertainment is not a one-size-fits-all world. We want you to be able to choose the hardware that makes sense for you, so we are working with multiple partners to bring a variety of Steam gaming machines to market during 2014, all of them running SteamOS.

The biggest mystery is what exactly is in the some 15 to 20 Steam Box designs Valve has commissioned. Quasi-CEO Gabe Newell had previously toldThe Verge that hardware would be split into "good" (~$100 USD), "better" ($300+ USD), and "best" hardware tiers, with the top level having no cap on the allowed hardware or price.

Some of the commissioned devices are rumored to have a fourth generation Intel Corp. (INTC) Core i7-Series processor, an undisclosed NVIDIA Corp. (NVDA) graphics processing unit, and 8 GB of DRAM. But Valve shed no further light on the specifications mystery at its somewhat vaporous Wednesday "unveil".

A reported Steam Box prototype [Image Source: Polygon]

Regardless, we should get solid information on the spec shortly as units trickle out to beta testers at the end of next month.

II. A Gamepad for RTS? Valve Thinks So!

On Friday Valve showed off something a bit more substantial -- the Steam controller. Rumored for months via Valve's patent filings, the new controller toes the line between a Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) Xbox One controller and a Nintendo Comp., Ltd. (TYO:7974) Wii U controller.

One highlight of the controller is its twin "trackpads", circular thumb areas which are clickable.

Valve claims the trackpads rival the resolution of a gaming mouse -- a pretty impressive feat for a gamepad, if true. The trackpads also feature a unique form of force feedback. Valve explains:

Trackpads, by their nature, are less physical than thumbsticks. By themselves, they are “light touch” devices and don’t offer the kind of visceral feedback that players get from pushing joysticks around. As we investigated trackpad-based input devices, it became clear through testing that we had to find ways to add more physicality to the experience. It also became clear that “rumble”, as it has been traditionally implemented (a lopsided weight spun around a single axis), was not going to be enough. Not even close.

The Steam Controller is built around a new generation of super-precise haptic feedback, employing dual linear resonant actuators. These small, strong, weighted electro-magnets are attached to each of the dual trackpads. They are capable of delivering a wide range of force and vibration, allowing precise control over frequency, amplitude, and direction of movement.

Valve claims that the controllers are so responsive they can even act as tiny speakers.

The controller also features, as hinted at above, a central touchscreen, which Steam says will allow unique functions via an API it's offering developers (think hotkeys). The controller has four other hardware buttons on the front face, and two "portal" buttons on the shoulders, which typically execute a mouse click action.

Valve is seeking beta testers for early wired versions of the controllers. Later versions will be wireless.

III. Developers Praise Controller, Remind it's Still a Prototype

Developers who tested the controller seemed relatively pleased with its design in interviews compiled by Engadget. Fredrik Wester, CEO and president of Paradox Interactive, said in his brief time with the controller, he found it very easy to learn, relating, "I have used the controller for about 20 minutes for a third-person game and it took me about five minutes to learn, and then it felt natural."

And Ichiro Lambe, Dejobaan Games president, comments, "It feels comfortable, yet different from anything I've used before...Within five minutes of picking it up, I went from newbie to controlling an FPS camera better than I'd ever done with a gamepad."

One minor gripe he has is the lack of hard physical limits to your motion. He remarks, "I think analog sticks are better at defining boundaries -- for instance, I can mash a stick forward as far as I physically can, and I know I'm going to walk forward as quickly as I can. I just can't push it forward any further. The trackpads require more finesse; my thumbs will have to learn where to stop."

Valve is claiming that the controller with open up gamepad real-time strategy (RTS) -- an ambitious target that's never been fully achieved on the PC. Sega (Sammy Holdings Inc. (TYO:6460)) VP John Clark, has perhaps the best advice of all, reminding the masses not to get too worked up and judge the controller prematurely -- be it good or bad. He comments, "[Remember], it's a prototype and the purpose of the beta is for the developers to experiment."

Valve -- who gets most of its revenue from PC gamers -- has indeed stoked the interest of the anti-Windows 8 crowd who are eyeing this Linux as a possible alternative. But there are still more question than answers -- "Where's Half Life 3?", "What's the hardware in the boxes?" "How many premium game developers will use Valve's Steam Controller API?"

Wed. and Friday brought no Half Life 3. [Image Source: Valve]

Hopefully the answers will come over the course of this holiday season, as the Steam Box ecosystem creeps closer to product form.

I feel like I am missing something here because I'm not that excited about this announcement. It's hard to find details about what the SteamOS can and cannot do. This seems to be entirely Valve's fault as I don't think they're announcements went very well, or at least worked to ensure things were clear.

Can I play non-steam games on this?Will all Steam games currently available work?I still need an actual computer, right?Can SteamOS do anything other than stream games from my PC?Why wouldn't I just get an HDMI cable?Does the streaming work via WiFi? What kind of bandwidth is needed so FPS games aren't choppy/shitty?How many hotkeys can you bind to the controller? While we're at it, why do people think controller offer more control than a mouse/keyboard?Am I the only one who likes watching TV while I game?What is Valve's target market for this?If this costs more than an HDMI cable, will anyone care?

I don't know, maybe I'm not excited because I'm not in the camp of "Windows is the cancer killing PC games". I still don't see how that statement makes any sense. I also use my PC for things other than gaming, like, you know, actual work.

I think you're thinking too small, and of the mindset of "I can already to X or better." Clearly the product is not intended for you in such cases. Furthermore, it'll be a more flexible platform overall. Streaming may be great when you take into account being able to stream to as many TV's as you want, or maybe even expand it to other devices, etc.

Furthermore it's a forward-thinking move. Like it or not Valve in certain aspects thinks Windows it's holding it's platform back. So they want to move past it, define new functionality and features as they see fit, and not be within the confines of how Windows works.

I welcome everything they're doing. I find consoles way too restrictive and dull, but I want pc gaming to be more TV friendly. Big picture mode is just the beginning, and I welcome the move to start ditching Windows. Windows has gaming as an advantage, but as an OS/platform it's not offering anything to take gaming to the next level.

I think the big thing is that I am personally looking forward to... Is being able to Stream all my games.

Basically, you would only need one single powerful PC in your home, everything else from phones to tablets to the HTPC has the potential to then be streamed from the main Desktop, essentially you could have greater-than playstation 4 and Xbox One performance combined on even a tablet.

nVidia went down this road with nVidia's Shield, Valve is just taking it to the next level, just need devices that support it!

I'm very confused with you guys acting like you can't game on a big tv. I've been gaming on my 50 inch tv for almost 5 years now ever since I bought my AMD Radeon 5870(Bought at midnight online at release) then moved on to a Radeon 6950 and now on a 7950. Every one of the cards works great hooked up to the TV so I've been Gaming on a 50 inch since 2009 so there is nothing new to gaming on a big screen.

not everyone is happy having/allowed to have a noisy 'jet engine like' machine in their living room.

i've got a pretty powerful quad core rackmount server (which i got very very cheaply on ebay) that i keep in the garage to run an ubuntu based multi TB zfs array with plexserver for all my bluray movies. if i could chuck in a decent nvidia card (amd linux drivers suck) and virtualise a win 7 install for compromised but still decent gaming over LAN then it would be quite handy.

p.s. virtualisation is a must to avoid risking the stability of the server

I think the problem is we have two camps. Those who have gaming rigs in their living rooms...near a tv, and those who have an office like environment setup. I have the later, and I welcome the ability to stream wirelessly if it works well.

If you're able to easily implement wake on lan with the Steambox so you don't have to physically turn on your computer everytime you want to stream from it, then I'll most likely get one.

How is it more flexible than the most popular and flexible OS available? What is Windows not doing that SteamOS can or will do?

It's one thing to try and pick up the anti-win 8 crowd, but I mean what about all the people, especially gamers, who frankly are fine the way it is? What is the incentive to change? If Valve wants to have success in this area, it DOES actually have to make a case to change, especially if it proposes you abandon Windows for SteamOS. That's based on the presumption they aren't going to roll there own Auto-Dualboot installer.

Idk, I don't think the thought is small-minded, I think Valve is just awkwardly intruding on a market that may or may not have an appetite for another Linux disto with 'lower gaming latency' whatever that even means.

They haven't made the case to change.

Frankly, more interesting than a Steambox or SteamOS is the controller, which may just be a hype item.

Answering your questions the best I can from the info Valve's given out:

Can I play non-steam games on this? The hardware comes with SteamOS, but you can install any OS on it you want. If you're inside SteamOS, maybe you can play other Linux games, but we don't know yet.

Will all Steam games currently available work? Those available on Linux will work as-is. Those only supported by Windows will use the streaming service.

I still need an actual computer, right? Only if you want to stream games.

Can SteamOS do anything other than stream games from my PC? They've announced music/movie streaming, as well as the above-mentioned native Linux capabilities.

Why wouldn't I just get an HDMI cable? This is a normal PC, with an OS custom-tuned to work well with games. If you want to hook up a PC to your TV with HDMI today and run it in Big Picture mode, you'll get largely the same experience.

Does the streaming work via WiFi? What kind of bandwidth is needed so FPS games aren't choppy/shitty? Nvidia recommands a dual-band 802.11n router, though they list 11a and 11g as supported; I imagine the requirements will be similar for this.

How many hotkeys can you bind to the controller? Valve says there are 16 buttons.

While we're at it, why do people think controller offer more control than a mouse/keyboard? They're offering their controller as an alternative, for people who play mouse/keyboard-centric games, but want to do so from the couch. They're not saying this is better than a mouse/keyboard, just that it might be "good enough".

Am I the only one who likes watching TV while I game? I know some people who do that; I sometimes play a game while [i]listening[/i] to TV; I can't watch it while playing with my current setup.

What is Valve's target market for this? People who want to play PC games from the couch, and don't want to (or don't know how to) set up a normal gaming machine next to their TV.

If this costs more than an HDMI cable, will anyone care? Unless you overpay for HDMI cables, so does every other gaming machine. I think you wrote this under the assumption that this machine can only stream games.

All in all, I see this venture as a way to get more marketshare, not as a way of replacing the way we currently play games. You can buy a "Steam Machine", load it with Windows, and use it as your everyday PC. Or you can take your older computer, load SteamOS on it, and play games on the couch with your 360 controller.

I think Steam is onto something here I already have an HTPC although the graphics are weak for gaming its perfect for home theater. Im in the market for a new Video card I can easily take my 6870 and dump it into my HTPC. My 6870 runs 3 screens at 1920x1080 now so driving a single 1920x1080 screen will be easy for most games especially the ones that have been ported to linux however they should make it easy for the consumer to boot straight into Windows and to the steam desktop and controllable from the valve controller. If they make a video player add in web streaming services like netflix/hulu/amazon and all easily controllable they really have something special. The biggest headache of an HTPC is controlling the HTPC. Its meant to be a PC not a gamepad style controlled device. It wasnt overly complicated to take Windows PC add XBMC and an X-Box controller to it for control but it still has quirks. If Steam can make it that much more controllable and functional they have something worth looking at. Im interested in this but if its just linux that could either drive linux gaming or make steam a well its ok but not great item. Time will tell.

Ok, so that makes a little more sense, games that work with Linux won't need to be streamed. Still looks like non Steam games are a no-go.

In the end it seems to boil down to how much I want to play PC games on the couch. I gotta say, I don't mind escaping the wife and kids to play some games in my 'man cave'. Last thing I'd want is my kids running up and turning off the TV during a game.

Yes...if they are relased on Linux, which they usually aren't. Otherwise you can stream them to your PC.

quote: Will all Steam games currently available work?

Again, only if they are available for Linux, which they aren't.

quote: I still need an actual computer, right?

To do the streaming, yes, but not to play Linux games on the Steambox.

quote: Can SteamOS do anything other than stream games from my PC?

It's a Linux distribution, so it can do what a Linux PC can do, which (with difficulty) is basically everything any other PC can do.

quote: Why wouldn't I just get an HDMI cable?

You would, IMO. That would be better in literally every way - but not everybody has a setup where that's possible. It is what I do however.

quote: Does the streaming work via WiFi? What kind of bandwidth is needed so FPS games aren't choppy/shitty?

Yes via WiFi, bandwidth isn't likely to be an issue, but latency might be a massive issue that renders the streaming completely worthless for many types of games.

quote: How many hotkeys can you bind to the controller?

Depends on which controller you use (not sure how many buttons are on Valve's controller).

quote: While we're at it, why do people think controller offer more control than a mouse/keyboard?

Nobody who's not an imbecile thinks the controller offers better control, but some people do prefer them nevertheless. Also in a lounge room, a keyboard and mouse is hardly practical (which is why I mostly don't play games in the lounge room).

quote: Am I the only one who likes watching TV while I game?

No

quote: What is Valve's target market for this?

It seems to be Valve and Linux fanboys, but that's probably enough people that if things turn out well others will be drawn in.

Unless it has access to a more broad-based streaming service than netflix--at a similar price...

Unless it is offering me the option to sell used games to other players using this device...

Unless it is going to provide all software updates/patches for ALL games bought/sold via steam, not just certain ones or newer ones (i.e. Fallout 3 GOTYE is no longer FAIL)...

Then no, no I'm not interested. I was gung-ho over Virtual Console on the Wii, but came to be sorely disappointed because of developers hoarding their content and not releasing it. I've been sorely disappointed with Netflix for similar reasons. I still have both, and still use both--but I'm not happy. Steam having a boatload of content doesn't do jack-squat for me if I have to track down obscure fixes for software to make it work.

Bottom line is they want you to abandon Windows in favor of SteamOS, which is a 'lite OS' that CLAIMS to have appreciable performance benefits for gaming by removing 'built in latency' whatever that even means as no one has noticed this in the 15-20 years games have been coming out for PC...

Of course, this is a foot-in-the-door tactic and essentially they will expand the OS to actually be worthy of being compared to Windows in the way of, you know, actual OS functionality. However, then that begs the question of what SteamOS does or offers that Windows does not.

Honestly, I don't get it either. Sounds like marketing hype centered around a service that I enjoy, yet performs sporadically and all-too-often disconnects in the middle of a great round of Zombies... meh-factor x 1000 but we'll see.

They dont' make it overly clear why anyone should abandon Windows for this OS, as dual booting isn't exactly in a casual users toolset.

It just seems irrelevant to me.

On the controller-side of things though, I'm curious to see if this is hype or not. Could be cool stuff.

quote: Bottom line is they want you to abandon Windows in favor of SteamOS, which is a 'lite OS' that CLAIMS to have appreciable performance benefits for gaming by removing 'built in latency' whatever that even means as no one has noticed this in the 15-20 years games have been coming out for PC...

They are likely just capitalizing on Microsoft's stagnation in the gaming industry lately (lack of new features and builds of DirectX) by taking advantage of a few new hardware features like NVidia's bindless graphics extensions in OpenGL that remove some of the overhead of draw calls on the CPU, and maybe a few features to enhance the presentation model to reduce latency introduced by things like vsync (stuff like NVidia's adaptive vsync model). The end result is that it should be easier to get a little better perf than with DirectX or OpenGL in its current form on Windows or Linux, but I sincerely doubt it will be a huge difference for long.

The actual compute power of the GPU itself will remain the same. There's no API or programming model which will suddenly allow the hardware to do more than it can on a different platform.

The built in latency for windows is the amount of time I ponder the next OS upgrade due to $90-150 coming out of my wallet. With a FREE OS there is no latency in my decision...ROFL. I just download and install, no fear of "aww crap, this OS is junk, now I'm out $90-150"... :)

"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007